In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: set BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP during subvol create
We have recently observed a number of subvolumes with broken dentries.
ls-ing the parent dir looks like:
drwxrwxrwt 1 root root 16 Jan 23 16:49 .
drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 24 Jan 23 16:48 ..
d????????? ? ? ? ? ? broken_subvol
and similarly stat-ing the file fails.
In this state, deleting the subvol fails with ENOENT, but attempting to
create a new file or subvol over it errors out with EEXIST and even
aborts the fs. Which leaves us a bit stuck.
dmesg contains a single notable error message reading:
"could not do orphan cleanup -2"
2 is ENOENT and the error comes from the failure handling path of
btrfs_orphan_cleanup(), with the stack leading back up to
btrfs_lookup().
btrfs_lookup
btrfs_lookup_dentry
btrfs_orphan_cleanup // prints that message and returns -ENOENT
After some detailed inspection of the internal state, it became clear
that:
- there are no orphan items for the subvol
- the subvol is otherwise healthy looking, it is not half-deleted or
anything, there is no drop progress, etc.
- the subvol was created a while ago and does the meaningful first
btrfs_orphan_cleanup() call that sets BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP much
later.
- after btrfs_orphan_cleanup() fails, btrfs_lookup_dentry() returns -ENOENT,
which results in a negative dentry for the subvolume via
d_splice_alias(NULL, dentry), leading to the observed behavior. The
bug can be mitigated by dropping the dentry cache, at which point we
can successfully delete the subvolume if we want.
i.e.,
btrfs_lookup()
btrfs_lookup_dentry()
if (!sb_rdonly(inode->vfs_inode)->vfs_inode)
btrfs_orphan_cleanup(sub_root)
test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP)
btrfs_search_slot() // finds orphan item for inode N
...
prints "could not do orphan cleanup -2"
if (inode == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))
inode = NULL;
return d_splice_alias(NULL, dentry) // NEGATIVE DENTRY for valid subvolume
btrfs_orphan_cleanup() does test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP)
on the root when it runs, so it cannot run more than once on a given
root, so something else must run concurrently. However, the obvious
routes to deleting an orphan when nlinks goes to 0 should not be able to
run without first doing a lookup into the subvolume, which should run
btrfs_orphan_cleanup() and set the bit.
The final important observation is that create_subvol() calls
d_instantiate_new() but does not set BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP, so if
the dentry cache gets dropped, the next lookup into the subvolume will
make a real call into btrfs_orphan_cleanup() for the first time. This
opens up the possibility of concurrently deleting the inode/orphan items
but most typical evict() paths will be holding a reference on the parent
dentry (child dentry holds parent->d_lockref.count via dget in
d_alloc(), released in __dentry_kill()) and prevent the parent from
being removed from the dentry cache.
The one exception is delayed iputs. Ordered extent creation calls
igrab() on the inode. If the file is unlinked and closed while those
refs are held, iput() in __dentry_kill() decrements i_count but does
not trigger eviction (i_count > 0). The child dentry is freed and the
subvol dentry's d_lockref.count drops to 0, making it evictable while
the inode is still alive.
Since there are two races (the race between writeback and unlink and
the race between lookup and delayed iputs), and there are too many moving
parts, the following three diagrams show the complete picture.
(Only the second and third are races)
Phase 1:
Create Subvol in dentry cache without BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP set
btrfs_mksubvol()
lookup_one_len()
__lookup_slow()
d_alloc_parallel()
__d_alloc() // d_lockref.count = 1
create_subvol(dentry)
// doesn't touch the bit..
d_instantiate_new(dentry, inode) // dentry in cache with d_lockref.c
---truncated---
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it